404 replies to this topic

[Ruar]

Plenty of times I have a bad match.

Kind of amazed you are so hung up on what I say though.

[Dingo Battler]

I personally find that PVP games like MWO are not fun if you're not improving and winning.

There are much more fun games to play than MWO if you want to switch off your brain and shoot stuff. Warframe for example. I used to play it a lot, but never got the satisfaction of PVP, hence I'm pretty on-off.

There's a lot people can do to improve if they took the time to learn, instead of using a quick fix like LRMs. Decreasing sensitivity is a massive one. My ingame sensitivity is only 20% of what I use for browsing.

Either way, LRMs are ok in medium/heavy mechs like catapults I guess. I'm still annoyed, but not annoyed enough to say anything, but still annoyed nonetheless, as they contribute little meaningful damage, and no armour at all. If an assault LRM boat requests locks, I do not target mechs on purpose. No point letting him pad his score while not contributing anything.

An assault without weapons at the front soaking up fire is infinitely more useful than an LRM boat in the rear. I'll always choose the former in any situation regardless.

[Moomtazz]

MischiefSC, on 24 April 2017 - 01:23 PM, said:

However the instant any of them poked up to get LOS to shoot they got focused by ~10 people to their CT and died. We took some heavy fire but because we were always all sharing armor and focusing the same location on the same target we ended the first wave 14 - 12.

This is the worst part about LRMs vs other weapons. Focusing fire with direct fire weapons takes discipline and usually comes with experience. Focus fire with LRMs is as simple as hitting R then firing. I argue that this single mechanic is why LRMs appear to be more effective at lower tiers. It becomes a crutch and players risk not developing the discipline and awareness needed to focus fire, especially in QP where targets are not usually called.

[Revis Volek]

[Acehilator]

Ruar, on 24 April 2017 - 10:01 AM, said:

The biggest issue with LRMs is their group contribution is difficult to judge even if the individual returns are high. Did the LRM mech share it's armor? Did the LRM mech attract attention and divert the enemy team which created mismatches in other areas of the map? Did the LRM mech apply damage to key components or was the damage spread?

The answer to these questions most of the time is no. The LRM mechs don't share armor, they don't help create mismatches, and they don't apply damage critically. There will be a few matches that go great for the LRM boats. Like the last match I played where I missed seeing a UAV on polar and got annihilated in about 20 secs in my Roughneck. GG LRM boats.

However, it takes a perfect storm of events to happen to make LRM mechs rewarding to the team. I can take a brawling or sniping mech and make my own luck for the most part.

Which is why people don't like LRM boats in general and really don't like them on mechs with enough weight to defend against a push or help make a push happen. People don't like to see key mechs sitting in the back cranking up their individual score while ignoring the team overall. A 12-10 win feels unsatisfying if you are one of the 10 who died and you know... absolutely know... that if the LRM mech had only been up front then more people on your team would still be alive at the end of the match.

So that's why people don't like LRM boats and it's going to continue to be this way until PGI changes LRM mechanics to make them require the pilots to be group friendly and less sitting the back providing "support".

Only thing you need to do to create "a perfect storm" is move with the team. That is not really hard. And being a force multiplier is about as easy as it gets... you can fire without stopping even when there are already five people maneuvering around a corner trying to get their weapons to bear, and you can send support to people on the other side of the map if the situation really calls for it. It is about as hard as ganging up on targets as a Locust/Commando/Cheetah.

And we already had this discussion in another thread last week, Meta Kodiaks, Night Gyrs etc. somehow don't get ranted at for "not sharing their armor", when they are guilty of that just as often, or even more often, because those long range builds are way more common that LRM boats, and their playstyle is just as passive most of the time. Regarding applying damage where it counts... as if the average PUG player could do it with any kind of efficiency.

MischiefSC, on 24 April 2017 - 01:11 PM, said:

I'd love to see LRMs get made viable. Currently though, against a decent team, they're not. That's the crux of the conversation. Their value declines based on the skill of who you're playing. Direct fire doesn't. That's the beginning and the end of the discussion. The real argument here is keeping newer people from getting lied to by people saying 'LRMs have the highest skill cap' and 'they work fine if you use them right'. That's only true if 'use them right' means 'use them against bad players'.

I don't really agree with your assessment of FW leaderboards, but I see your point, and we are getting offtopic, so I'll leave it at that. So on topic:

You know that the value of direct fire weapons declines vs good players too, why do you keep repeating that it doesn't? We could discuss that LRMs are hit harder by this effect, but honestly I doubt it. For every T1 player who is really good at using cover, you get one that dismisses LRMs out of hand and does not adjust his playstyle to having a LRM boat on the enemy team ("spread damage lolz, who cares?").

And I know that because of the way PGIs BS PSR system works T1/T2 have become diluted with players who would not have made it there if MWO would use a proper ELO system, but I guess we can agree that average player capabilities are still significantly higher in T1/2 than in T5/4? And if that is the case, why are my results getting better the higher I climb? Just because my skill at using LRMs increases faster than the average skill of my opponents? That can't be the only reason.

[CDLord HHGD]

I need to start boating LRMs more......

[FuhNuGi]

The problem with LRMs is the typical user will take the "L" part too seriously.

Yes, they have a maximum range... like all other systems.

Like all other systems, their maximum range is well beyond the EFFECTIVE range... just because you can get a 2000m hit with your gauss PPC, are you doing any damage? If you launched a volley of 30 missiles and 3 hit at 1000m, any damage there? How about you LBX guys hitting with 1 pellet? Sure, it counts as a hit, but...

So, I object to guys in the back, firing on other guys locks all game from 700m, REGARDLESS OF THE WEAPON SYSTEM BEING USED. Get out of your hole and make something happen.

In my active fire testing of LRMs, running from around 450m is optimal for negating the downsides of flight time, spread.. and still giving good trajectory for object clearance.
This range also allows for participation in better team grouping and movement... and Creating Your Own Locks!


It isn't just about being "smart", it is about understanding how your weapons system work and using them in the best way.

[MischiefSC]

Acehilator, on 25 April 2017 - 07:49 AM, said:

Only thing you need to do to create "a perfect storm" is move with the team. That is not really hard. And being a force multiplier is about as easy as it gets... you can fire without stopping even when there are already five people maneuvering around a corner trying to get their weapons to bear, and you can send support to people on the other side of the map if the situation really calls for it. It is about as hard as ganging up on targets as a Locust/Commando/Cheetah.

And we already had this discussion in another thread last week, Meta Kodiaks, Night Gyrs etc. somehow don't get ranted at for "not sharing their armor", when they are guilty of that just as often, or even more often, because those long range builds are way more common that LRM boats, and their playstyle is just as passive most of the time. Regarding applying damage where it counts... as if the average PUG player could do it with any kind of efficiency.




I don't really agree with your assessment of FW leaderboards, but I see your point, and we are getting offtopic, so I'll leave it at that. So on topic:

You know that the value of direct fire weapons declines vs good players too, why do you keep repeating that it doesn't? We could discuss that LRMs are hit harder by this effect, but honestly I doubt it. For every T1 player who is really good at using cover, you get one that dismisses LRMs out of hand and does not adjust his playstyle to having a LRM boat on the enemy team ("spread damage lolz, who cares?").

And I know that because of the way PGIs BS PSR system works T1/T2 have become diluted with players who would not have made it there if MWO would use a proper ELO system, but I guess we can agree that average player capabilities are still significantly higher in T1/2 than in T5/4? And if that is the case, why are my results getting better the higher I climb? Just because my skill at using LRMs increases faster than the average skill of my opponents? That can't be the only reason.

No. The value of direct fire weapons is based on your ability to land hits. They can not 'mitigate' PPFLD save by never coming out of cover. You can't twist it away. Hence the periodic rise of poptarting. Minimal exposure to deliver full damage, if you have the skill, to a single location.

LRMs are not a force multiplier. That's a lie. That would only be correct if they made the WHOLE TEAM more effective at projecting force - they do not. All they do is allow someone hiding in the back, leaving their team to get focused, the ability to shoot scattered and inferior damage to people their teammates are getting shot to lock for them.

Any leaderboard. Any comp play. Any competitive environment that has good teams in them. In all these cases LRMs are proven, repeatedly, to be inferior. Full stop. Your opinion on that is irrelevant. You want to change it, prove it wrong. Nobody ever has.

[Ghogiel]

MischiefSC, on 25 April 2017 - 12:45 PM, said:

Any leaderboard. Any comp play. Any competitive environment that has good teams in them. In all these cases LRMs are proven, repeatedly, to be inferior. Full stop. Your opinion on that is irrelevant. You want to change it, prove it wrong. Nobody ever has.

Even if lrms were even an option in higher skilled environments, teams would just have a couple mechs take 1/2 ton of AMS and by the time they ran out of ammo the match would be mostly decided

[MischiefSC]

Ghogiel, on 25 April 2017 - 01:00 PM, said:

Even if lrms were even an option in higher skilled environments, teams would just have a couple mechs take 1/2 ton of AMS and by the time they ran out of ammo the match would be mostly decided

Like 95% of the matches in last seasons MRBC in Div A and B were over inside of 8 minutes. Many were 4 minutes. The light drops were often 3 or so.

However LRMs being bad has nothing to do with how they're used or skill levels involved or anything else. If Clan ACs were single round like IS they would be in all ways superior. Why? More precision. Why did the laservomit meta ever exist? Because lasers were in a place where the hitscan high damage for manageable heat offset the slight spread of burn duration. Why do poptarts still have a lot of value? PPFLD, full damage 1 location at good to great range with minimal exposure.

That same theme. Precision, accuracy, control of where your damage applies, ability to get it instantly or near instantly to target. LRMs have none of this. Nothing you do in using LRMs makes up for this. Even if AMS and ECM didn't exist they would still be inferior. With AMS and ECM, the ability to avoid 100% of damage by stepping into cover, in fact the ability to do 100% of your damage to the LRM boat and move back into cover to mitigate 75-100% of his damage back to you, the sort of obliviousness required to not understand why LRMs are bad by comparison is why bads are bad and stay bad.

[Novakaine]

Lol I got ragged on just last night.
By a good fellow on my team.
But after the match he manned up and apologized.
Viewing the kill count.
As for MischiefSC I would tend to disagree with him.
With respect.
While not a force multiplier which I would agree with.
Using them to their full tactical advantages will more often than not sway a game.
I will personally attest to that fact.
Softening up slow lumbering assaults, stalling pushes and chasing off light mechs are just a few.
The only serious flaw with lurms are poor usage by those clods in the rear and not sharing armor with the team.
And those who like to belittle and criticize their use.
But as always.........

Edited by Novakaine, 25 April 2017 - 01:15 PM.

[Colonel Presumptuous]

I use LRMS, some times... and im one of those people who hate em most of the time. Nothing like poking your head up for a second only too hear incoming missile and seeing 3-4 waves coming in from multipal locations 2-3 grids away behind cover on the enemy team, and/or you get into cover with no one behind or spotting you but the missile rain keeps coming over and over and then your dead having done jack in the match due to having to hide all the damn time.

Was in a match last night, as a locust literally entire enemy team in front of us (while this was happening i was looking everywhere for potential ECM mechs on the flanks) I get locked on back up out of site for over 8+ seconds I had 2-3 enemies LRMing on me until i poped, I was moving around behind heavy cover, in ditchs there wasnt a chance in hell the enemy could see me given where i was behind my team, and i wasnt narced or tagged and was well outside the target retention time for modules but somehow they managed to keep lock on me for that amount of time and so i was the first killed having not even fired a shot... and that happens fairly often.. it isnt fun, its the complete opposite of fun, at least in a fight where you have to see your enemy to engage you feel like your death was on your head due to your mistakes and you can fight back... LRMs nope.

And dont get me started on the guys who start the match by saying "get me those locks and we'll win!" and its usually some damn assault LRM boat, especially when they start to ***** over coms that people arent getting them a stable lock on (yeah im gonna keep my head out in front of the entire enemy team behind that ridge so you can get a lock on while i get torn to shreds, dream on), if you cant see the target your gonna LRM then I dont want to know you.

And for the record when i use LRMs i usually have the enemy in plain view (sure if i can get some off from cover or distance to help out a fight in another grid Ill do it, thats smart, but i aint gonna sit and dump em out at max range while my other weapons sit idle)... if your gonna LRM, get your own damn lockons.

[Mcgral18]

You know who else hates missiles?


MWO Bugs

[Novakaine]

That bug is very circumstantial, bad yes.
Game breaking no - ammo rule still applies.
Mainly because just how many people do you even see with ams?
Can't convince my own unit to even bother carrying it.

[Ted Wayz]

Moomtazz, on 24 April 2017 - 06:24 PM, said:

This is the worst part about LRMs vs other weapons. Focusing fire with direct fire weapons takes discipline and usually comes with experience. Focus fire with LRMs is as simple as hitting R then firing. I argue that this single mechanic is why LRMs appear to be more effective at lower tiers. It becomes a crutch and players risk not developing the discipline and awareness needed to focus fire, especially in QP where targets are not usually called.

Yes, it takes immense discipline to fire off two 80 pt alphas with pinpoint convergence from 500 plus meters.

Absolutely no discipline to maintain LOS on your target (get your own locks) while maintaining 300 to 400M for max effectiveness (travel time and ammo consumption) knowing that if you are an IS lurmer your target will immediately try and engage at 180M or less. No skill and no discipline at all.

[MischiefSC]

Novakaine, on 25 April 2017 - 01:14 PM, said:

Lol I got ragged on just last night.
By a good fellow on my team.
But after the match he manned up and apologized.
Viewing the kill count.
As for MischiefSC I would tend to disagree with him.
With respect.
While not a force multiplier which I would agree with.
Using them to their full tactical advantages will more often than not sway a game.
I will personally attest to that fact.
Softening up slow lumbering assaults, stalling pushes and chasing off light mechs are just a few.
The only serious flaw with lurms are poor usage by those clods in the rear and not sharing armor with the team.
And those who like to belittle and criticize their use.
But as always.........

There's some good reasons to take LRMs - poor framerates, issues that make having great aim with direct fire just not possible even with practice, etc.

As to the uses of LRMs I can and do get all that done with direct fire - better, too. I can kill someone instead of getting them back into cover or at least destroying their ST. People get back into cover when they take 50-70 pts to their CT the instant they peep out of cover. Then if they peek again they get promoted to spectator.

There's some people I'll happily play with when they take LRMs. It's a short list and you're on it; I've ended up on your team in pug queue more than once and played FW with you no few times.

Again though, the only thing LRMs let you do that direct fire doesn't do as well or better is shoot at enemies you don't have LOS to. The tradeoff for that is my 50 pts arrives to a single location in 0.3-0.66 (depending on ballistics travel time or lasers total burn duration) seconds, the LRMs hopefully deliver 50 pts 2-4 seconds later spread over several locations (if they hit at all). If I can see you I can shoot you with direct fire and the shots go where I aim them. LRMs get AMSed, ECMed, targets move and break lock before the payload is delivered, a teammate changes targets, etc. Maybe the guy just steps into cover between the time when you click fire and the missiles arrive.

The first is way better at killing people than the second and ensures you're where you need to be.

Ted Wayz, on 25 April 2017 - 03:30 PM, said:

Yes, it takes immense discipline to fire off two 80 pt alphas with pinpoint convergence from 500 plus meters.

Absolutely no discipline to maintain LOS on your target (get your own locks) while maintaining 300 to 400M for max effectiveness (travel time and ammo consumption) knowing that if you are an IS lurmer your target will immediately try and engage at 180M or less. No skill and no discipline at all.

So much absolutely wrong in that statement. If you're not in a Scorch, which means you're face-humping range, you're not shooting an 80 pt alpha. Nobody is doing it twice in a row at 500m plus without blowing up from overheat.

The discipline in being in position to shoot the enemy better than he's shooting you; get LOS to your target without being exposed to multiple enemies. Range is absolutely critical because if he's SPLs I can LPL him at 350m just fine; if he's CERML + LPLs I'll lose that trade if I'm not twisting very quickly. Given that he can also fade to 450m+ he'll also win that trade. If I'm inside of 230m that SPL build will kill me because he's more focused and heat efficient. I need to know on sight what he's got and how it plays against what I've got. Just because I can lock someone doesn't mean I shoot.

Then there's heat efficiency. Since I'm exposed to shoot if I overheat I'm either blowing stuff off myself or I'm powering down in the line of fire. I need to also know where I'm shooting; I helped turn a match around earlier today in a Roughneck because I was able to pull off the arms of a ACH, then I took the LT off his 3xERPPC (why?!?) HBR buddy, leaving him disarmed, so I could ignore him and help take the RT off that dakka MAD IIC, neutering him so my crippled teammates could finish him. I got no kills that match but functionally disabled 3 enemy mechs in short order by knowing what to shoot and put that damage where I needed it when I needed it.

The only range you worry about with LRMs is 180m if you're IS. For intelligent direct fire you have to know where your build plays against the enemy. Further or closer, can you stay in the open for 2 shots or do you have to spread his return fire, who else could shoot at you while you're exposed, etc.

Nobody sane is going to actually legitimately say the skillset for LRMs is as hard as direct fire. That you're saying that implies you're so oblivious of how actual direct fire works it also explains why you think LRMs are good.

[Ted Wayz]

MischiefSC, on 25 April 2017 - 03:48 PM, said:

There's some good reasons to take LRMs - poor framerates, issues that make having great aim with direct fire just not possible even with practice, etc.

As to the uses of LRMs I can and do get all that done with direct fire - better, too. I can kill someone instead of getting them back into cover or at least destroying their ST. People get back into cover when they take 50-70 pts to their CT the instant they peep out of cover. Then if they peek again they get promoted to spectator.

There's some people I'll happily play with when they take LRMs. It's a short list and you're on it; I've ended up on your team in pug queue more than once and played FW with you no few times.

Again though, the only thing LRMs let you do that direct fire doesn't do as well or better is shoot at enemies you don't have LOS to. The tradeoff for that is my 50 pts arrives to a single location in 0.3-0.66 (depending on ballistics travel time or lasers total burn duration) seconds, the LRMs hopefully deliver 50 pts 2-4 seconds later spread over several locations (if they hit at all). If I can see you I can shoot you with direct fire and the shots go where I aim them. LRMs get AMSed, ECMed, targets move and break lock before the payload is delivered, a teammate changes targets, etc. Maybe the guy just steps into cover between the time when you click fire and the missiles arrive.

The first is way better at killing people than the second and ensures you're where you need to be.




So much absolutely wrong in that statement. If you're not in a Scorch, which means you're face-humping range, you're not shooting an 80 pt alpha. Nobody is doing it twice in a row at 500m plus without blowing up from overheat.

The discipline in being in position to shoot the enemy better than he's shooting you; get LOS to your target without being exposed to multiple enemies. Range is absolutely critical because if he's SPLs I can LPL him at 350m just fine; if he's CERML + LPLs I'll lose that trade if I'm not twisting very quickly. Given that he can also fade to 450m+ he'll also win that trade. If I'm inside of 230m that SPL build will kill me because he's more focused and heat efficient. I need to know on sight what he's got and how it plays against what I've got. Just because I can lock someone doesn't mean I shoot.

Then there's heat efficiency. Since I'm exposed to shoot if I overheat I'm either blowing stuff off myself or I'm powering down in the line of fire. I need to also know where I'm shooting; I helped turn a match around earlier today in a Roughneck because I was able to pull off the arms of a ACH, then I took the LT off his 3xERPPC (why?!?) HBR buddy, leaving him disarmed, so I could ignore him and help take the RT off that dakka MAD IIC, neutering him so my crippled teammates could finish him. I got no kills that match but functionally disabled 3 enemy mechs in short order by knowing what to shoot and put that damage where I needed it when I needed it.

The only range you worry about with LRMs is 180m if you're IS. For intelligent direct fire you have to know where your build plays against the enemy. Further or closer, can you stay in the open for 2 shots or do you have to spread his return fire, who else could shoot at you while you're exposed, etc.

Nobody sane is going to actually legitimately say the skillset for LRMs is as hard as direct fire. That you're saying that implies you're so oblivious of how actual direct fire works it also explains why you think LRMs are good.

Oh you are right. Range and positioning has no effect on LRMs.

Except that it does. Especially for hit rate. That is why for good LRM carriers LOS is important. And so is range. Travel time needs to be managed along with heat if you carry any decent amount of launchers.

So everything you say for direct fire applies to LRM boats, the good ones at least. But we don't get pinpoint convergence. And both IS and Clan suffer range penalties.

And yes 80 pt is achievable twice. But yes that is on the high end. 60 pts twice, not so hard amirite?

Direct fire is truly the no skill. The reason you see less Lurmers in the higher tiers is it is more difficult and less people are able to be successful at it. Mainly many of the haters in this thread.

[MischiefSC]

Ted Wayz, on 25 April 2017 - 04:06 PM, said:

Oh you are right. Range and positioning has no effect on LRMs.

Except that it does. Especially for hit rate. That is why for good LRM carriers LOS is important. And so is range. Travel time needs to be managed along with heat if you carry any decent amount of launchers.

So everything you say for direct fire applies to LRM boats, the good ones at least. But we don't get pinpoint convergence. And both IS and Clan suffer range penalties.

And yes 80 pt is achievable twice. But yes that is on the high end. 60 pts twice, not so hard amirite?

Direct fire is truly the no skill. The reason you see less Lurmers in the higher tiers is it is more difficult and less people are able to be successful at it. Mainly many of the haters in this thread.

Okay, please show me the 80 pt alpha at 500+m pinpoint build. Even 60 is a stretch. 55 is about where it taps out and that's not really twice without coolshot or a pause. Given that CERPPCs only do 10 pts directly and 5 pts spread. Some functionally useless Dire Wolf builds maybe? Are you trying to count double-tapped UAC builds? Do you understand that pinpoint is not the same as direct fire?

You don't see LRMs in high skill play because they're **** by comparison to direct fire. Full stop. That's been proven repeatedly. You want to dispute it then you need to actually put up or shut up.

In fact, I tell you what - who do you think is the best LRM player in the game? Best direct fire player? I might be willing to put up some mech packs at my expense to put LRMs vs Direct Fire in a duel. If you say it's only good in teams then okay - best LRM team you can think of if they'll do it and the best direct fire team willing to do it. How much are you willing to put in and risk?

Because you're trying to make statements that have always been proven false when tested. Always. In fact how about this - you take direct fire and I'll bribe a top tier player to take LRMs and still beat you, because the top tier players in the game certainly can play LRMs just fine. They just don't, because LRMs are **** by comparison.

How do you want to test this? Let's hammer out some details. Then we can work out what the loser pays for.

Edited by MischiefSC, 25 April 2017 - 04:30 PM.

[Moomtazz]

Ted Wayz, on 25 April 2017 - 03:30 PM, said:

Yes, it takes immense discipline to fire off two 80 pt alphas with pinpoint convergence from 500 plus meters.

Absolutely no discipline to maintain LOS on your target (get your own locks) while maintaining 300 to 400M for max effectiveness (travel time and ammo consumption) knowing that if you are an IS lurmer your target will immediately try and engage at 180M or less. No skill and no discipline at all.

My point wasn't that higher skill is need to hit with direct fire vs LRMs, there is no question about that. Rather, there is more "skill" needed to pick out and/or switch to targets/components that are being focused by your team when using direct fire weapons.

[Ruar]

Acehilator, on 25 April 2017 - 07:49 AM, said:

Only thing you need to do to create "a perfect storm" is move with the team. That is not really hard. And being a force multiplier is about as easy as it gets... you can fire without stopping even when there are already five people maneuvering around a corner trying to get their weapons to bear, and you can send support to people on the other side of the map if the situation really calls for it. It is about as hard as ganging up on targets as a Locust/Commando/Cheetah.

And we already had this discussion in another thread last week, Meta Kodiaks, Night Gyrs etc. somehow don't get ranted at for "not sharing their armor", when they are guilty of that just as often, or even more often, because those long range builds are way more common that LRM boats, and their playstyle is just as passive most of the time. Regarding applying damage where it counts... as if the average PUG player could do it with any kind of efficiency.

Moving with the team is not enough. You need terrain that is open enough to allow firing and then at the same time terrain that is open enough the enemy team can't take cover. You need people getting locks and holding those locks long enough for missiles to hit. You also need all of this to happen in conjunction with achieving the objectives.

The only time I've observed LRMs be a force multiplier is when the above items happen and the LRMs force the opposing team to move in a way to avoid getting hit. The same thing can happen from direct fire weapons and happens more frequently so it's not really a strong argument for LRMs.

As to the other part, I think you are wrong. I get just as upset about meta mechs who play poorly as I do LRM mechs that play poorly. And honestly, saying "something else sucks so why are you upset that this thing sucks too" isn't really the best way to go about convincing people LRM assaults are a good thing. Saying pugs suck so we might as well accept the mediocrity of LRMs is also a bad way to go.

LRMs are poorly designed and implemented in the game. There are limited times when using LRMs makes sense and the rest of the time a team is better off with direct fire weapons.